LITCHFIELD — Police investigating a claim that Robert Zordan intended to shoot co-workers following a divisive meeting at his Farmington workplace Dec. 27 were prepared for a standoff at the former Torrington Board of Public Safety Commissioner's home when they sought to take possession of his 13 guns later that day.

Zordan, who claims through his attorney he was coerced into turning over the weapons which included an illegally modified semi-automatic assault rifle, wants them back.

Testimony throughout the day during a firearms safety hearing at Bantam Superior Court on Tuesday will continue today before Judge Elizabeth A. Gallagher decides whether Zordan and his guns pose a risk to himself or others and he should be allowed to have them. The law requires such hearings to be held within two weeks of guns seizures.

An employee at Connecticut Spring and Stamping, Zordan was involved in a production meeting when the discussion grew heated, police said. The company manufactures precision parts including parts for the firearms industry.

Under questioning by defense attorney Rachel Baird and Assistant State's Attorney Jonathan Knight, Farmington Police Sgt. Sean Bailey said he coordinated a tactical response with officers from Farmington and several others from the city police department before responding to Zordan's Dawes Avenue home. His effort, he said, was to get "his side of the story" and take possession of his firearms. Officers surrounded the home, securing what Bailey terms "a perimeter" safe for the possibility of long range rifle fire.

According to a statement by fellow employee Sean Gibbons, Zordan argued loudly and used profanity during the meeting. After Gibbons called Zordan later to ask how he was doing, he returned to Gibbons office and told him "I'm coming back with my .40 caliber," Bailey said. He assured Gibbons he wouldn't shoot him.

Gibbons notified management. Human Resources officer Kathleen Bellemare testified Zordan had no history of violence or threats, though there had been cited for unspecified issues regarding his job performance. The call to Farmington police was made, she said, "because we have zero tolerance for workplace violence."

Bailey said the decision to set up a "perimeter" of officers around the Zordan home was the result of Gibbons statement. Under questioning by Knight, he said a pattern of stress and dissatisfaction at his workplace were known factors.

When Bailey asked Zordan to turn over 13 guns kept in a basement gun safe, he initially declined. He offered to turn them over to his son, Gregory, a state trooper who arrived with a sergeant from the Troop L state police barracks.

Bailey, who described Zordan as upset but cooperative and even friendly with some of the Torrington officers who knew him, testified he declined to allow trooper Zordan to take the guns. He said Zordan denied making threats to shoot anyone.

"I explained to him I needed to take his firearms and he needed a mental health evaluation," Bailey said. "He didn't want to give them up. He said I like my guns."

Bailey said he explained to Zordan that he would "secure" his home and gain a warrant to seize them if he didn't voluntarily turn them over. The last, a handgun, was loaded when he handed it to police.

"You didn't think it was safe to transfer the firearms to his son," Baird asked.

"No," Bailey replied, then under questioning by Knight said the younger Zordan was in an emotional state. "Who is to say they wouldn't be back in the house as soon as we left. It wasn't a decision I was comfortable making as a supervisor."

"Did you believe he was an imminent danger to himself or others?" Baird asked.

"That was a distinct possibility," Bailey replied.

Baird fired back, "he didn't want to surrender his guns and you continued to talk him into it."

Zordan was charged with illegal possession of an assault weapon, second-degree breach of peace and second-degree threatening. He is free on a $250,000 bond.

while his case is pending.

Follow Us

Brian wrote on Jan 16, 2013 5:48 AM:

" See? This could happen to you! Government comes crashing down your door. I'm sure there's an NRA backed attorney that can make this horrendous usurpation of his 2nd Amendment rights gain some national attention. The man did nothing wrong! Stay alert! Stay armed! "

" Sure the liberal judge should give him his guns back. Even the illegally modified one. He wont harm anyone.

Anyone caught with a modified illegal gun automatically looses their right to possess guns for life. That's the law. You can add some possible jail time on that too. Then there is the threatening charge. Don't blame the guns when they give them back and he kills someone. I say rather than ban the gun, ban the liberal judges! "

" So where do you suppose he got these firearms? Family heirlooms? Caballa's? I know all judges are liberals so why even bother with that part of the mess, huh? So if he didn't make the threat, he'd be rolling along carrying his to the nearest Litchfield range. Why don't I feel safer knowing he's had at least a baker's dozen? "

" 1. This thing reeks so bad. Basically, Zordan says he never made a threat. Someone else said he said he was coming back with a gun. So essentially, I could call the police and say one of my coworkers is upset and said they are coming back with a gun, and that alone gives police the ability to confiscate the weapons. Saying you are getting a gun is relatively benign compared to saying you are going to kill someone, which is an actual threat. Nothing he said constituted an intent to harm or kill anyone. With no history of violence, threats or misconduct in the workplace, I am inclined to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. If anything, this is probably a case of poor word choice.

2. Illegally modified rifle could be anything. If he had a legal rifle, and removed the bolt that keeps the stock from collapsing, it would be come illegal by the states definition. Has zero effect on the weapon's performance. This is the very reason I have kept mine in its stock configuration. I haven't had time to navigate the muddy waters of what defines an illegal weapon in CT. "

" Per the Torrington Register of 1-4-2013 regarding the gun modification:

"Torrington police cooperated with the Farmington police department in executing a search warrant on Zordan's Torrington home, Porter said. There, they found 16 firearms, one of which was an assault rifle that had been illegally modified with a telescoping rear stock and a pistol grip."

" Gentlemen and by Gentlemen I mean Al and George :)The law is the law. Without laws we have anarchy. You have a legally purchased shotgun with pistol grip. I used to have one too. It's LEGAL. If you shorten the barrel and cut the stock, it's ILLEGAL. legal, illegal.legal illegal..legal..legal. (got ya). He was accused of a threat, and yes they searched his home and found guns ok. If found innocent he would get his guns back. Now that he was caught with an illegal gun, he will lose his right to live in a home with a gun in it FOR LIFE. His wife cant even have a gun now. That's the law. "

What if he was building the "illegal assault weapon" (yes, you can get the parts and build a very nice custom gun yourself and it is perfectly legal), and he got the thing finished, but hadn't brought it to the range yet to figure out where to pin the stock in place, which would have made the gun legal in CT? I wonder where that would leave him in the swamp of CT gun laws... "

" I'm coming back with my .40 is not a threat? If he said that to me, as he got out of his car he would be met by 2 .223's to the chest. The police were well within the law to seize his guns. He needs a psych eval too. "

" I am so skeptical of this story. I've read it on three different news websites, and in each, it has been presented with a different version of the said threat. This guy is getting the shaft for being a disgruntled employee and has fallen victim to some of the most arcane and draconian gun laws in CT.

@Con1

If he said he was going to come back with his bag of marbles, would that have been a threat? The sentence is the same, merely a different object. I am not convinced. Not a threat. Now had he said, I am going to come back with X and kill everyone here. That would constitute a threat. "

Post a reader comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog. Please be civil and respectful.If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican. Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.